Search Results

Search found 17921 results on 717 pages for 'cocoa design patterns'.

Page 11/717 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

  • How to get pixel data from a UIImage (Cocoa Touch) or CGImage (Core Graphics)?

    - by Olie
    I have a UIImage (Cocoa Touch). From that, I'm happy to get a CGImage or anything else you'd like that's available. I'd like to write this function: - (int)getRGBAFromImage:(UIImage *)image atX:(int)xx andY:(int)yy { // [...] // What do I want to read about to help // me fill in this bit, here? // [...] int result = (red << 24) | (green << 16) | (blue << 8) | alpha; return result; } Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How can I write cocoa bindings as code instead of in the Interface Builder?

    - by johnjohndoe
    In my modell got an NSMutableArray that keeps track of a changing number of elements. In my view I got a NSTextField that shows the number of elements. The view gots unarchived from the nib file and alloc/inits the modell. Therefore it knowns about the modell and the contained array. I established the connection as follows. In the Interface Builder at the textfield I added a Cocoa Binding "path" like this: myModell.myArray.@count. By this I can access the count property (which is a must since the array itself does not change). The binding is based on key-value compliance which I established at the modell so the array can be accessed. But key-value compliance is not part of the questions. My question: How can I put the binding into the sourcecode and not writing it into the Interface Builder?

    Read the article

  • So Singletons are bad, then what?

    - by Bobby Tables
    There has been a lot of discussion lately about the problems with using (and overusing) Singletons. I've been one of those people earlier in my career too. I can see what the problem is now, and yet, there are still many cases where I can't see a nice alternative - and not many of the anti-Singleton discussions really provide one. Here is a real example from a major recent project I was involved in: The application was a thick client with many separate screens and components which uses huge amounts of data from a server state which isn't updated too often. This data was basically cached in a Singleton "manager" object - the dreaded "global state". The idea was to have this one place in the app which keeps the data stored and synced, and then any new screens that are opened can just query most of what they need from there, without making repetitive requests for various supporting data from the server. Constantly requesting to the server would take too much bandwidth - and I'm talking thousands of dollars extra Internet bills per week, so that was unacceptable. Is there any other approach that could be appropriate here than basically having this kind of global data manager cache object? This object doesn't officially have to be a "Singleton" of course, but it does conceptually make sense to be one. What is a nice clean alternative here?

    Read the article

  • LSP vs OCP / Liskov Substitution VS Open Close

    - by Kolyunya
    I am trying to understand the SOLID principles of OOP and I've come to the conclusion that LSP and OCP have some similarities (if not to say more). the open/closed principle states "software entities (classes, modules, functions, etc.) should be open for extension, but closed for modification". LSP in simple words states that any instance of Foo can be replaced with any instance of Bar which is derived from Foo and the program will work the same very way. I'm not a pro OOP programmer, but it seems to me that LSP is only possible if Bar, derived from Foo does not change anything in it but only extends it. That means that in particular program LSP is true only when OCP is true and OCP is true only if LSP is true. That means that they are equal. Correct me if I'm wrong. I really want to understand these ideas. Great thanks for an answer.

    Read the article

  • Design pattern for an ASP.NET project using Entity Framework

    - by MPelletier
    I'm building a website in ASP.NET (Web Forms) on top of an engine with business rules (which basically resides in a separate DLL), connected to a database mapped with Entity Framework (in a 3rd, separate project). I designed the Engine first, which has an Entity Framework context, and then went on to work on the website, which presents various reports. I believe I made a terrible design mistake in that the website has its own context (which sounded normal at first). I present this mockup of the engine and a report page's code behind: Engine (in separate DLL): public Engine { DatabaseEntities _engineContext; public Engine() { // Connection string and procedure managed in DB layer _engineContext = DatabaseEntities.Connect(); } public ChangeSomeEntity(SomeEntity someEntity, int newValue) { //Suppose there's some validation too, non trivial stuff SomeEntity.Value = newValue; _engineContext.SaveChanges(); } } And report: public partial class MyReport : Page { Engine _engine; DatabaseEntities _webpageContext; public MyReport() { _engine = new Engine(); _databaseContext = DatabaseEntities.Connect(); } public void ChangeSomeEntityButton_Clicked(object sender, EventArgs e) { SomeEntity someEntity; //Wrong way: //Get the entity from the webpage context someEntity = _webpageContext.SomeEntities.Single(s => s.Id == SomeEntityId); //Send the entity from _webpageContext to the engine _engine.ChangeSomeEntity(someEntity, SomeEntityNewValue); // <- oops, conflict of context //Right(?) way: //Get the entity from the engine context someEntity = _engine.GetSomeEntity(SomeEntityId); //undefined above //Send the entity from the engine's context to the engine _engine.ChangeSomeEntity(someEntity, SomeEntityNewValue); // <- oops, conflict of context } } Because the webpage has its own context, giving the Engine an entity from a different context will cause an error. I happen to know not to do that, to only give the Engine entities from its own context. But this is a very error-prone design. I see the error of my ways now. I just don't know the right path. I'm considering: Creating the connection in the Engine and passing it off to the webpage. Always instantiate an Engine, make its context accessible from a property, sharing it. Possible problems: other conflicts? Slow? Concurrency issues if I want to expand to AJAX? Creating the connection from the webpage and passing it off to the Engine (I believe that's dependency injection?) Only talking through ID's. Creates redundancy, not always practical, sounds archaic. But at the same time, I already recuperate stuff from the page as ID's that I need to fetch anyways. What would be best compromise here for safety, ease-of-use and understanding, stability, and speed?

    Read the article

  • Avoiding the Anaemic Domain - How to decide what single responsibility a class has

    - by thecapsaicinkid
    Even after reading a bunch I'm still falling into the same trap. I have a class, usually an enity. I need to implement more than one, similar operations on this type. It feels wrong to (seemingly arbitrarily) choose one of these operations to belong inside the entity and push the others out to a separate class; I end up pushing all operations to service classes and am left with an anaemic domain. As a crude example, imagine the typical Employee class with numeric properties to hold how many paid days the employee is entitled to for both sickness and holiday and a collection of days taken for each. public class Employee { public int PaidHolidayAllowance { get; set; } public int PaidSicknessAllowance { get; set; } public IEnumerable<Holiday> Holidays { get; set; } public IEnumerable<SickDays> SickDays { get; set; } } I want two operations, one to calculate remaining holiday, another for remaining paid sick days. It seems strange to include say, CalculateRemaingHoliday() in the Employee class and bump CalculateRemainingPaidSick() to some PaidSicknessCalculator class. I would end up with a PaidSicknessCalculator and a RemainingHolidayCalculator and the anaemic Employee entity as seen above. The other alternative would be to put both operations in the Employee class and kick Single Responsibility to the curb. That doesn't make for particularly maintainable code. I suppose the Employee class should have some initialisation/validation logic (not accepting negative alowances etc.) So maybe I just stick to basic initialisation and validation in the entities themselves and be happy with my separate calculator classes. Or maybe I should be asking myself if Anaemic Domain is actually causing me some tangible problems with my code.

    Read the article

  • design pattern for unit testing? [duplicate]

    - by Maddy.Shik
    This question already has an answer here: Unit testing best practices for a unit testing newbie 4 answers I am beginner in developing test cases, and want to follow good patterns for developing test cases rather than following some person or company's specific ideas. Some people don't make test cases and just develop the way their senior have done in their projects. I am facing lot problems like object dependencies (when want to test method which persist A object i have to first persist B object since A is child of B). Please suggest some good books or sites preferably for learning design pattern for unit test cases. Or reference to some good source code or some discussion for Dos and Donts will do wonder. So that i can avoid doing mistakes be learning from experience of others.

    Read the article

  • design pattern for unit testing?

    - by Maddy.Shik
    I am beginner in developing test cases, and want to follow good patterns for developing test cases rather than following some person or company's specific ideas. Some people don't make test cases and just develop the way their senior have done in their projects. I am facing lot problems like object dependencies (when want to test method which persist A object i have to first persist B object since A is child of B). Please suggest some good books or sites preferably for learning design pattern for unit test cases. Or reference to some good source code or some discussion for Dos and Donts will do wonder. So that i can avoid doing mistakes be learning from experience of others.

    Read the article

  • Relationship between Repository and Unit of Work

    - by NullOrEmpty
    I am going to implement a repository, and I would like to use the UOW pattern since the consumer of the repository could do several operations, and I want to commit them at once. After read several articles about the matter, I still don't get how to relate this two elements, depending on the article it is being done in a way u other. Sometimes the UOW is something internal to the repository: public class Repository { UnitOfWork _uow; public Repository() { _uow = IoC.Get<UnitOfWork>(); } public void Save(Entity e) { _uow.Track(e); } public void SubmittChanges() { SaveInStorage(_uow.GetChanges()); } } And sometimes it is external: public class Repository { public void Save(Entity e, UnitOfWork uow) { uow.Track(e); } public void SubmittChanges(UnitOfWork uow) { SaveInStorage(uow.GetChanges()); } } Other times, is the UOW whom references the Repository public class UnitOfWork { Repository _repository; public UnitOfWork(Repository repository) { _repository = repository; } public void Save(Entity e) { this.Track(e); } public void SubmittChanges() { _repository.Save(this.GetChanges()); } } How are these two elements related? UOW tracks the elements that needs be changed, and repository contains the logic to persist those changes, but... who call who? Does the last make more sense? Also, who manages the connection? If several operations have to be done in the repository, I think using the same connection and even transaction is more sound, so maybe put the connection object inside the UOW and this one inside the repository makes sense as well. Cheers

    Read the article

  • Is ORM an Anti-Pattern?

    - by derphil
    I had a very stimulating and interessting discussion with a colleague about ORM and it's Pros and Cons. In my opinion, an ORM is useful only in the rarest cases. At least in my experience. But I don't want to list my own arguments at this time. So I ask you, what do you think about ORM? What are the Pros and the Cons? P.S. I've posted this "question" yesterday on Stackoverflow, but some of the user think, that this should better posted here.

    Read the article

  • Acceptable placement of the composition root using dependency injection and inversion of control containers

    - by Lumirris
    I've read in several sources including Mark Seemann's 'Ploeh' blog about how the appropriate placement of the composition root of an IoC container is as close as possible to the entry point of an application. In the .NET world, these applications seem to be commonly thought of as Web projects, WPF projects, console applications, things with a typical UI (read: not library projects). Is it really going against this sage advice to place the composition root at the entry point of a library project, when it represents the logical entry point of a group of library projects, and the client of a project group such as this is someone else's work, whose author can't or won't add the composition root to their project (a UI project or yet another library project, even)? I'm familiar with Ninject as an IoC container implementation, but I imagine many others work the same way in that they can scan for a module containing all the necessary binding configurations. This means I could put a binding module in its own library project to compile with my main library project's output, and if the client wanted to change the configuration (an unlikely scenario in my case), they could drop in a replacement dll to replace the library with the binding module. This seems to avoid the most common clients having to deal with dependency injection and composition roots at all, and would make for the cleanest API for the library project group. Yet this seems to fly in the face of conventional wisdom on the issue. Is it just that most of the advice out there makes the assumption that the developer has some coordination with the development of the UI project(s) as well, rather than my case, in which I'm just developing libraries for others to use?

    Read the article

  • Is there an antipattern to describe this method of coding?

    - by P.Brian.Mackey
    I have a codebase where the programmer tended to wrap things up in areas that don't make sense. For example, given an Error log we have you can log via ErrorLog.Log(ex, "friendly message"); He added various other means to accomplish the exact same task. E.G. SomeClass.Log(ex, "friendly message"); Which simply turns around and calls the first method. This adds levels of complexity with no added benefit. Is there an anti-pattern to describe this?

    Read the article

  • Help identify the pattern for reacting on updates

    - by Mike
    There's an entity that gets updated from external sources. Update events are at random intervals. And the entity has to be processed once updated. Multiple updates may be multiplexed. In other words there's a need for the most current state of entity to be processed. There's a point of no-return during processing where the current state (and the state is consistent i.e. no partial update is made) of entity is saved somewhere else and processing goes on independently of any arriving updates. Every consequent set of updates has to trigger processing i.e. system should not forget about updates. And for each entity there should be no more than one running processing (before the point of no-return) i.e. the entity state should not be processed more than once. So what I'm looking for is a pattern to cancel current processing before the point of no return or abandon processing results if an update arrives. The main challenge is to minimize race conditions and maintain integrity. The entity sits mainly in database with some files on disk. And the system is in .NET with web-services and message queues. What comes to my mind is a database queue-like table. An arriving update inserts row in that table and the processing is launched. The processing gathers necessary data before the point of no-return and once it reaches this barrier it looks into the queue table and checks whether there're more recent updates for the entity. If there are new updates the processing simply shuts down and its data is discarded. Otherwise the processing data is persisted and it goes beyond the point of no-return. Though it looks like a solution to me it is not quite elegant and I believe this scenario may be supported by some sort of middleware. If I would use message queues for this then there's a need to access the queue API in the point of no-return to check for the existence of new messages. And this approach also lacks elegance. Is there a name for this pattern and an existing solution?

    Read the article

  • Optimal communication pattern to update subscribers

    - by hpc
    What is the optimal way to update the subscriber's local model on changes C on a central model M? ( M + C - M_c) The update can be done by the following methods: Publish the updated model M_c to all subscribers. Drawback: if the model is big in contrast to the change it results in much more data to be communicated. Publish change C to all subscribes. The subscribers will then update their local model in the same way as the server does. Drawback: The client needs to know the business logic to update the model in the same way as the server. It must be assured that the subscribed model stays equal to the central model. Calculate the delta (or patch) of the change (M_c - M = D_c) and transfer the delta. Drawback: This requires that calculating and applying the delta (M + D_c = M_c) is an cheap/easy operation. If a client newly subscribes it must be initialized. This involves sending the current model M. So method 1 is always required. Think of playing chess as a concrete example: Subscribers send moves and want to see the latest chess board state. The server checks validity of the move and applies it to the chess board. The server can then send the updated chessboard (method 1) or just send the move (method 2) or send the delta (method 3): remove piece on field D4, put tower on field D8.

    Read the article

  • Javascript: Avoid this and new - further reading? [closed]

    - by Thomas Deutsch
    I do not want this to end in a sort of religious discussion, i want to collect some sources for further reading on this topic. As shown here: Node.js Style and Structure Point 1: Avoid this and new you can find a good example when it could be better to use closures instead of a prototype, and to make every argument explicit. Ok, i agree - could be nice, but i need to know more. Can anyone recommend a good link? Would this make my code 100% object-pattern-free ? (no factory-, repository-, module- pattern?)

    Read the article

  • Is implementing an interface defined in a subpackage an anti-pattern?

    - by Michael Kjörling
    Let's say I have the following: package me.my.pkg; public interface Something { /* ... couple of methods go here ... */ } and: package me.my; import me.my.pkg.Something; public class SomeClass implements Something { /* ... implementation of Something goes here ... */ /* ... some more method implementations go here too ... */ } That is, the class implementing an interface lives closer to the package hierarchy root than does the interface it implements but they both belong in the same package hierarchy. The reason for this in the particular case I have in mind is that there is a previously-existing package that groups functionality which the Something interface logically belongs to, and the logical (as in both "the one you'd expect" and "the one where it needs to go given the current architecture") implementation class exists previously and lives one level "up" from the logical placement of the interface. The implementing class does not logically belong anywhere under me.my.pkg. In my particular case, the class in question implements several interfaces, but that feels like it doesn't make any (or at least no significant) difference here. I can't decide if this is an acceptable pattern or not. Is it or is it not, and why?

    Read the article

  • Is the Entity Component System architecture object oriented by definition?

    - by tieTYT
    Is the Entity Component System architecture object oriented, by definition? It seems more procedural or functional to me. My opinion is that it doesn't prevent you from implementing it in an OO language, but it would not be idiomatic to do so in a staunchly OO way. It seems like ECS separates data (E & C) from behavior (S). As evidence: The idea is to have no game methods embedded in the entity. And: The component consists of a minimal set of data needed for a specific purpose Systems are single purpose functions that take a set of entities which have a specific component I think this is not object oriented because a big part of being object oriented is combining your data and behavior together. As evidence: In contrast, the object-oriented approach encourages the programmer to place data where it is not directly accessible by the rest of the program. Instead, the data is accessed by calling specially written functions, commonly called methods, which are bundled in with the data. ECS, on the other hand, seems to be all about separating your data from your behavior.

    Read the article

  • Object Design catalog and resources

    - by Tauren
    I'm looking for web sites, books, or other resources that provide a catalog of object designs used in common scenarios. I'm not looking for generic design patterns, but for samples of actual object designs that were used to solve real problems. For instance, I'm about to build an internal messaging system for a web application, similar to Facebook's messaging system. This system will allow administrators to send messages to all members, to selected groups of members, or to individuals. Members can send messages to other members or groups of members. Fairly common stuff and a feature that I'm sure thousands of web applications require. I know each situation is different and there are a million ways to design this solution. Although this scenario isn't really all that complex, I'm sure the basic design of the necessary objects and relationships for a system like this has already been done many times. It would be nice to review other similar designs before building my own. Is there a place where people can share their designs and others can browse/search through the catalog to review and provide feedback on them? StackOverflow could be used to a degree for this, but doesn't really provide a catalog of designs. Any other resources that would relate?

    Read the article

  • How do I bind to a custom view in Cocoa using Xcode 4?

    - by Newt
    I'm a beginner when it comes to writing Mac apps and working with Cocoa, so please forgive my ignorance. I'm looking to create a custom view, that exposes some properties, which I can then bind to an NSObjectController. Since it's a custom view, the Bindings Inspector obviously doesn't list any of the properties I've added to the view that I can then bind to using Interface Builder. After turning to the Stackoverflow/Google for help, I've stumbled across a couple of possible solutions, but neither seem to be quite right for my situation. The first suggested creating an IBPlugin, which would then mean my bindings would be available in the Bindings Inspector. I could then bind the view to the controller using IB. Apparently IBPlugins aren't supported in Xcode 4, so that one's out the window. I'm also assuming (maybe wrongly) that IBPlugins are no longer supported because there's a better way of doing such things these days? The second option was to bind the controller to the view programmatically. I'm a bit confused as to exactly how I would achieve this. Would it require subclassing NSObjectController so I can add the calls to bind to the view? Would I need to add anything to the view to support this? Some examples I've seen say you'd need to override the bind method, and others say you don't. Also, I've noticed that some example custom views call [self exposeBinding:@"bindingName"] in the initializer. From what I gather from various sources, this is something that's related to IBPlugins and isn't something I need to do if I'm not using them. Is that correct? I've found a post on Stackoverflow here which seems to discuss something very similar to my problem, but there wasn't any clear winner as to the best answer. The last comment by noa on 12th Sept seems interesting, although they mention you should be calling exposeBinding:. Is this comment along the right track? Is the call to exposeBinding really necessary? Apologies for any dumb questions. Any help greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Design Pattern for building a Budget

    - by Scott
    So I've looked at the Builder Pattern, Abstract Interfaces, other design patterns, etc. - and I think I'm over thinking the simplicity behind what I'm trying to do, so I'm asking you guys for some help with either recommending a design pattern I should use, or an architecture style I'm not familiar with that fits my task. So I have one model that represents a Budget in my code. At a high level, it looks like this: public class Budget { public int Id { get; set; } public List<MonthlySummary> Months { get; set; } public float SavingsPriority { get; set; } public float DebtPriority { get; set; } public List<Savings> SavingsCollection { get; set; } public UserProjectionParameters UserProjectionParameters { get; set; } public List<Debt> DebtCollection { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public List<Expense> Expenses { get; set; } public List<Income> IncomeCollection { get; set; } public bool AutoSave { get; set; } public decimal AutoSaveAmount { get; set; } public FundType AutoSaveType { get; set; } public decimal TotalExcess { get; set; } public decimal AccountMinimum { get; set; } } To go into more detail about some of the properties here shouldn't be necessary, but if you have any questions about those I will fill more out for you guys. Now, I'm trying to create code that builds one of these things based on a set of BudgetBuildParameters that the user will create and supply. There are going to be multiple types of these parameters. For example, on the sites homepage, there will be an example section where you can quickly see what your numbers look like, so they would be a much simpler set of SampleBudgetBuildParameters then say after a user registers and wants to create a fully filled out Budget using much more information in the DebtBudgetBuildParameters. Now a lot of these builds are going to be using similar code for certain tasks, but might want to also check the status of a users DebtCollection when formulating a monthly spending report, where as a Budget that only focuses on savings might not want to. I'd like to reduce code duplication (obviously) as much as possible, but in my head, every way I can think to do this would require using a base BudgetBuilderFactory to return the correct builder to the caller, and then creating say a SimpleBudgetBuilder that inherits from a BudgetBuilder, and put all duplicate code in the BudgetBuilder, and let the SimpleBudgetBuilder handle it's own cases. Problem is, a lot of the unique cases are unique to 2/4 builders, so there will be duplicate code somewhere in there obviously if I did that. Can anyone think of a better way to either explain a solution to this that may or may not be similar to mine, or a completely different pattern or way of thinking here? I really appreciate it.

    Read the article

  • Best design for a "Command Executer" class

    - by Justin984
    Sorry for the vague title, I couldn't think of a way to condense the question. I am building an application that will run as a background service and intermittently collect data about the system its running on. A second Android controller application will query the system over tcp/ip for statistics about the system. Currently, the background service has a tcp listener class that reads/writes bytes from a socket. When data is received, it raises an event to notify the service. The service takes the bytes, feeds them into a command parser to figure out what is being requested, and then passes the parsed command to a command executer class. When the service receives a "query statistics" command, it should return statistics over the tcp/ip connection. Currently, all of these classes are fully decoupled from each other. But in order for the command executer to return statistics, it will obviously need access to the socket somehow. For reasons I can't completely articulate, it feels wrong for the command executer to have a direct reference to the socket. I'm looking for strategies and/or design patterns I can use to return data over the socket while keeping the classes decoupled, if this is possible. Hopefully this makes sense, please let me know if I can include any info that would make the question easier to understand.

    Read the article

  • design an extendible and pluggable business logic flow handler in php

    - by Broncha
    I am working on a project where I need to allow a pluggable way to inject business processes in the normal data flow. eg There is an ordering system. The standard flow of the application is A consumer orders an item. Pays for it and card is authorized. Admin captures the payment. Order is marked as complete and item is shipped. But this process may vary (extra steps in between) for different clients. Say a client would need to validate the location of the consumer before he is presented with a credit card form, OR his policies might require some other processes in between. I am thinking of using State Pattern for processing orders, saving the current state of the order in database, and initializing the state of order from the saved state. I would also need some mechanism, where a small plugin would be able to inject business specific states in the state machine. Am I thinking the right way? Are there already implemented patterns for this kind of situation? I am working with Codeigniter and basically this would mean for me, to redirect to proper controller according to the current state of the order. Like, if the state of the order is unconfirmed then redirect the user to details page and then change the state to pending. If some client would need to do some validation, then register an intermediate state between unconfirmed and pending Please suggest.

    Read the article

  • Design Pattern for Social Game Mission Mechanics

    - by Furkan ÇALISKAN
    When we want to design a mission sub-system like in the The Ville or Sims Social, what kind of design pattern / idea would fit the best? There may be relation between missions (first do this then this etc...) or not. What do you think sims social or the ville or any other social games is using for this? I'm looking for a best-practise method to contruct a mission framework for tha game. How the well-known game firms do this stuff for their large scale social facebook games? Giving missions to the players and wait players to complete them. when they finished the missions, providing a method to catch this mission complete events considering large user database by not using server-side not so much to prevent high-traffic / resource consumption. how should i design the database and server-client communication to achive this design condidering this trade-off.

    Read the article

  • New book in the style of Advanced Programming Language Design by R. A. Finkel [closed]

    - by mfellner
    I am currently researching visual programming language design for a university paper and came across Advanced Programming Language Design by Raphael A. Finkel from 1996. Other, older discussions in the same vein on Stackoverflow have mentioned Language Implementation Patterns by Terence Parr and Programming Language Pragmatics* by Michael L. Scott. I was wondering if there is even more (and especially up-to-date) literature on the general topic of programming language design. *) http://www.cs.rochester.edu/~scott/pragmatics/

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >